That part is in dispute (and in the case in point, I don't think Polanksi, for example, is recidivist). Indeed, in this particular crime, recidivist rates area among the lowest, and those which are repeat offenders suffer from mental pathologies).
I'm not talking about recidivism. What I said above was that the point of jailing Polanski is to deter the next guy who's thinking about doing something like this. (I grant that this is unlikely to have much effect on the pathological repeat offenders; this is more about deterring the non-pathological types who might try it once if they think they can get away with it.)
As for the deterrent effect, surely it is obvious that if this is reduced by given the victim the power to take up the adversarial then the option is available to increase the punishment applied where the victim wants proceedings to continue?
I don't find that an appealing argument, for a couple of reasons:
- IMHO, the punishment a person receives for an act should be based on the factors that are within their own sphere of control. If I try to shoot somebody, that shouldn't be treated any more lightly because (unbeknownst to me) they're wearing a ballistic vest. The perpetrator should be held responsible for their own choices, not whether the victim feels forgiving. (Since I'm looking at this from the angle of deterrence, there is no guarantee that the prospective victim next time around would feel the same way.)
- It has the potential to exacerbate systemic inequities. I strongly suspect that you'd see social pressure on victims to show more leniency to 'nice' white college kids than to the Scary Black Man who commits the same offence. Unequal punishments are already a major problem, but at least in the current system we can look at a judge's sentencing records etc. and call public attention to the worst cases. With decisions made by the victims, there are even less options for addressing the problem, because everybody in the justice system can wash their hands - "nothing to do with us".
no subject
I'm not talking about recidivism. What I said above was that the point of jailing Polanski is to deter the next guy who's thinking about doing something like this. (I grant that this is unlikely to have much effect on the pathological repeat offenders; this is more about deterring the non-pathological types who might try it once if they think they can get away with it.)
As for the deterrent effect, surely it is obvious that if this is reduced by given the victim the power to take up the adversarial then the option is available to increase the punishment applied where the victim wants proceedings to continue?
I don't find that an appealing argument, for a couple of reasons:
- IMHO, the punishment a person receives for an act should be based on the factors that are within their own sphere of control. If I try to shoot somebody, that shouldn't be treated any more lightly because (unbeknownst to me) they're wearing a ballistic vest. The perpetrator should be held responsible for their own choices, not whether the victim feels forgiving. (Since I'm looking at this from the angle of deterrence, there is no guarantee that the prospective victim next time around would feel the same way.)
- It has the potential to exacerbate systemic inequities. I strongly suspect that you'd see social pressure on victims to show more leniency to 'nice' white college kids than to the Scary Black Man who commits the same offence. Unequal punishments are already a major problem, but at least in the current system we can look at a judge's sentencing records etc. and call public attention to the worst cases. With decisions made by the victims, there are even less options for addressing the problem, because everybody in the justice system can wash their hands - "nothing to do with us".